The problem of religions has troubled me since I know my mind. I always looked at religion as superstition, however I had to accept that I can't disprove such beliefs. This annoyed me seriously. No matter how much philosophy I've read I couldn't find any reasonable proof about the non-existence of the supernatural. I was looking at the wrong place and for the wrong question. The solution was in meta-gaming, cheating, playing to win and the question wasn't even about the supernatural.
The "created" World is far from perfect, full of disasters and mass murderers. Why there is imperfection in the World created by a perfect God? Because of free will. If I can't make decisions, there is no "I", free will is necessary to define a person. However if one has free will, he can do evil too. God cannot interfere with our actions without eliminating free will. Can't magically turn the bullets of an evil murderer soft without making the choice to be a murderer impossible.
However for God to matter, he must interfere some time. If he never interferes with us, he may or may not exist, but we have no reason to care. If he doesn't make non-deterministic choices that affect us, we are free to call him "natural laws" and completely stop thinking about him as a being. Actually a non-interfering God would be nature.
The solution to keep both free will and a choice-making God is afterlife: God doesn't interfere with our lives to let us have free will, but will interfere with our afterlife, placing us to Heaven or Hell. This scheme is told by practically every religion, exactly because it's the only way to have both God and free will.
But what is the purpose of the normal world then, if there is a much better version? To allow judgment. The people are free to act good and evil in this world, forming the basis of judgment after death. This actually turns the life into a test. All wrong and suffering in this world is the consequence of someone failing to do the right thing. This person will be judged and punished, while the righteous will be rewarded by heaven. So we have divine perfection (in heaven), perfect justice (by sending the evil to Hell) despite the World we see is evil. The natural disasters and innocent victims are not disproving this: they could be foreseen, prevented or mitigated by people who choose not to. You could have spent money on earthquake research instead of military, you could have moved away from the faultline, you could have built a stronger house. Also, the victim - if lived his life properly - is not harmed as he goes to Heaven anyway.
So life is a game that will be evaluated by the perfect God who will send the "bad players" to Hell, while rewards the righteous with divine love and perfection in Heaven. This scheme resists all atheists ideas and could not be disproved.
It doesn't need to be disproved. The problem of this scheme can be summarized with a question: how would you describe the person who steals from a shop right front of a bunch of cops? The answer is "idiot", and not "immoral". He has no reasonable chance to achieve his goal, even temporarily (he won't drink the stolen booze), and he will be punished. In a world where cops stand everywhere, no one would commit crime except the insane.
If one believes that the world is test by God who will punish the failers and rewards the righteous, he will do good, regardless his moral preferences, just like a non-insane thief will act lawfully front of the policemen. This - again - is preached by religions: the crimes are done by people who turned away from God, while the true God-fearing person is living a righteous life.
However this is a fundamental loophole in the test! Since God sees and knows all, anyone believing in God knows that he is watched and won't do bad to avoid the punishment of Hell. The members of the true church are cheating the test of God! Since these people know that it is just a test, it no longer tests their morality, only their self-control and obedience. To make the test work God must hide from the people, making it impossible for them to figure his existence out. If you would say "God likes self-control and obedience" than you must explain why different religions exist. I mean if there are two preachers, you obviously can't obey both. The perfect God would never create such a faulty test.
One could claim that the test is recognizing the true God (true moral) by picking the true church. However such test would be very unfair. One risen by religious people is usually religious without thinking about it, simply by following what's been told him. So those who born as children of the members of the true church has a huge advantage over those who were born in atheist families. To make it worse, several religions actively punish non-believers. If that is not the true church, your only chance to go to Heaven is to become a martyr. No God would make so unfair test.
Since God would not allow cheating his test and religions do nothing else but help the people cheating, - extremely ironically - the existence of a true religion and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. So there is either no God (therefore all religions are wrong) or all the religions are useless and don't bring you closer to Heaven (that's why God lets them exist).
Please note that I did not disprove the existence of God. That probably can't be done as you can't make measurements on the supernatural. Atheists are doing it all wrong, trying to defeat the idea of God. The usefulness of Earthly religions can be disproved. People shouldn't be convinced to stop believing in God, they should be convinced to stop going to church.
The "created" World is far from perfect, full of disasters and mass murderers. Why there is imperfection in the World created by a perfect God? Because of free will. If I can't make decisions, there is no "I", free will is necessary to define a person. However if one has free will, he can do evil too. God cannot interfere with our actions without eliminating free will. Can't magically turn the bullets of an evil murderer soft without making the choice to be a murderer impossible.
However for God to matter, he must interfere some time. If he never interferes with us, he may or may not exist, but we have no reason to care. If he doesn't make non-deterministic choices that affect us, we are free to call him "natural laws" and completely stop thinking about him as a being. Actually a non-interfering God would be nature.
The solution to keep both free will and a choice-making God is afterlife: God doesn't interfere with our lives to let us have free will, but will interfere with our afterlife, placing us to Heaven or Hell. This scheme is told by practically every religion, exactly because it's the only way to have both God and free will.
But what is the purpose of the normal world then, if there is a much better version? To allow judgment. The people are free to act good and evil in this world, forming the basis of judgment after death. This actually turns the life into a test. All wrong and suffering in this world is the consequence of someone failing to do the right thing. This person will be judged and punished, while the righteous will be rewarded by heaven. So we have divine perfection (in heaven), perfect justice (by sending the evil to Hell) despite the World we see is evil. The natural disasters and innocent victims are not disproving this: they could be foreseen, prevented or mitigated by people who choose not to. You could have spent money on earthquake research instead of military, you could have moved away from the faultline, you could have built a stronger house. Also, the victim - if lived his life properly - is not harmed as he goes to Heaven anyway.
So life is a game that will be evaluated by the perfect God who will send the "bad players" to Hell, while rewards the righteous with divine love and perfection in Heaven. This scheme resists all atheists ideas and could not be disproved.
It doesn't need to be disproved. The problem of this scheme can be summarized with a question: how would you describe the person who steals from a shop right front of a bunch of cops? The answer is "idiot", and not "immoral". He has no reasonable chance to achieve his goal, even temporarily (he won't drink the stolen booze), and he will be punished. In a world where cops stand everywhere, no one would commit crime except the insane.
If one believes that the world is test by God who will punish the failers and rewards the righteous, he will do good, regardless his moral preferences, just like a non-insane thief will act lawfully front of the policemen. This - again - is preached by religions: the crimes are done by people who turned away from God, while the true God-fearing person is living a righteous life.
However this is a fundamental loophole in the test! Since God sees and knows all, anyone believing in God knows that he is watched and won't do bad to avoid the punishment of Hell. The members of the true church are cheating the test of God! Since these people know that it is just a test, it no longer tests their morality, only their self-control and obedience. To make the test work God must hide from the people, making it impossible for them to figure his existence out. If you would say "God likes self-control and obedience" than you must explain why different religions exist. I mean if there are two preachers, you obviously can't obey both. The perfect God would never create such a faulty test.
One could claim that the test is recognizing the true God (true moral) by picking the true church. However such test would be very unfair. One risen by religious people is usually religious without thinking about it, simply by following what's been told him. So those who born as children of the members of the true church has a huge advantage over those who were born in atheist families. To make it worse, several religions actively punish non-believers. If that is not the true church, your only chance to go to Heaven is to become a martyr. No God would make so unfair test.
Since God would not allow cheating his test and religions do nothing else but help the people cheating, - extremely ironically - the existence of a true religion and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. So there is either no God (therefore all religions are wrong) or all the religions are useless and don't bring you closer to Heaven (that's why God lets them exist).
Please note that I did not disprove the existence of God. That probably can't be done as you can't make measurements on the supernatural. Atheists are doing it all wrong, trying to defeat the idea of God. The usefulness of Earthly religions can be disproved. People shouldn't be convinced to stop believing in God, they should be convinced to stop going to church.
27 comments:
Oh man I can't imagine the amount of bible bashing this post will generate.
I was brought up in a superstitious family, my parents were Buddhists but indulged in feng shui and some old beliefs as well. It's bugged me since I realized that historically, scientists were prosecuted by the authorities because their radical ideas didn't fit into the current mindset. Socrates and Galileo are the two I can think of.
It seems that religion is a way to explain the unknown for man. We have this innate fear of the unknown, which we dispelled back in the days we were living in caves with stories of benevolent and malicious powers that governed our lives. Giving a name to the inexplicable forces of nature was better than living in fear of the unknown.
However, this is not to say that the religions are fake. There is so much more we have to discover - humans have existed for only ten thousand years give or take (okay that number is probably wrong but you get my idea).
In my opinion there are only two possibilities:
1. Every religion worships their own God, and believes he is the only 'true' God. They may all be worshiping the same God which manifests in different ways.
2. The birth of religion was inevitable for humans to start understanding the world better. They needed a way to break down the vast mysteries of nature into smaller bits so they would not be overwhelmed. Every civilization has different Gods because it was influenced by their geography, culture etc etc. Therefore, the divine beings are simply a stepping stone in the evolution of mankind. People still believe in them because we were told to do so by our forebearers.
IMO, (most) humans are social animals. We banded together since we started carving weird gibberish into cave walls. Over thousands of years we fought for our own beliefs - why? Is it so hard to assimilate other cultures? For me, it is rather weird that most people never ask 'why' in their lives. Try putting a group of priests from different religions together to prove that their god is real, and I would expect all of them to start quoting arcane pieces of scripts from (undefined) sources.
As of now, I remain a skeptic in the existence of a higher power. I do pray sometimes but only when I am facing an exam or some other difficulty. This builds upon the argument that humans only started believing in God because we were helpless before the forces of nature. When you have a pack of ravenous prehistoric animals on your ass without anything to defend your skinny starving ass - where do you find hope?
If someone could prove that God has actually manifested itself (I use it because if God is truly the highest power in existence, gender would probably not be an issue. Unless there is a Godfather and Godmother [I know damn it] doing whatever god does with their little God kids.) in the material world, I would gladly become a convert. Don't bash me for not reading the Bible or something - you know as well as I that the bible was written by man. Maybe a messenger of God, but still a man. Man is susceptible to bias in his beliefs - and most holy books have been revised so many times I doubt they resemble the original in any way.
Well... Intresting and funny thoughts.
At serveral points I found myself disagreeing - just for the next paragraph to make me agree again.
Well suited to troll some religious folks.
I've always followed the Askverse view from Dogma. God presents an idea and says, try to live a good life. Man gets in the way and creates some Fanon rules that he tells everyone that God says they must follow.
In Eve terms, it would be an Alliance leader giving a overarcing ambition, then a middleman saying that everyone must fly an exact fleet docterine otherwise they won't get their reward.
The book which influenced me the most in this area is Terry Pratchetts "Science of the Discworld II - The Globe". You are right its important to discourage the people from going to the church. As T.P. wrote. Priest are often nice people working for the good of the community. But if there is more of them at one place that's when the problems start.
@Anonymous
The religion is not there to understand the nature. Its tribal ideology combined with hope you could influence the future. You can't make the rain comming but you can pray and hope to influence the decition of someone who can make the rain comming.
@ Anonymous
"1. Every religion worships their own God, and believes he is the only 'true' God. They may all be worshiping the same God which manifests in different ways."
This is true with the Abrahamic religions and their subgroups. They have the God, diffing paths to redemption.
I think religions were born to basically explain why we are here. Men grow up, become old then die, and for what?
This started the cult of own beloved who passed away, with the idea (hope?) that there had to be something after life, why should we live a life of pain otherwise?
At this point the idea of supernatural entities was seeded among men, and many other things were then explained through it (Oh look, a lightning!! Some god must be angry up there!!).
Unfortunately, almost all religions came to a point were they became a politics tool, a way to control the masses (the history of the catholic church can say a lot if you try and read something about medieval periods).
I stopped discussing this point of view with believers, most of them will just say that I'm wrong (the perfect "controlled" believer), a few may want to discuss it, but to no point anyway.
Because of this, I don't really think there's any need to disprove religions.
By definition you either believe or not, and if you do, you blindly do so, therefore your religion cannot be disproved at all.
Religions are just another creation of human mind, like mathematics as well.
It's just up to you what to believe...
The answer is "idiot", and not "immoral"
Not true. This person is still immoral because s/he've chosen stealing (harming the owner) over the equal exchange. The presence of cops doesn't make him a moral idiot.
I like your blog quite a bit, and you've got decent thoughts in this entry.
But I think you're straying too far from your area of excellence, particularly as this overall topic that you broach is extremely complicated. Your views on it will most certainly evolve and refine, if you decide to spend more time on it. Thus, I think presenting these thoughts now is premature for you.
I, and others, could attempt to systematically point out glitches in your logic or conclusions here. But, no matter what 'side' you're on, it wouldn't be a fruitful exercise due to the level of complexity inherent in every sub-topic you'd touched on. That's why I'm not so thrilled about seeing this topic on your blog, even though I have always found the overall topic to be thrilling.
If you're interested in pursuing this sort of stuff further, here's a debate you might enjoy. It rigorously covers one of the useful sub-topics of this overall quandary, with either side representing their stances quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
Similarly, keep your eye out for an entertaining documentary called 'Collision,' which seeks to be even-handed and decently rigorous, and whose conclusion is up to you to decide.
...But what's most likely is that viewers confirm their prior biases. That's how us humans work. But hey, at least it's an opportunity.
Later, and thanks for the helpful blogging. Your posts have helped me carve out a pretty decent flow of ISK. Please keep it up!
Anonymous 07:47:"1. Every religion worships their own God, and believes he is the only 'true' God. They may all be worshiping the same God which manifests in different ways."
The problem with this point is, that over time you learn that those things you thought were the divine ways of god, can be explained.
Thunder is not the product of an angry thunder god, the sun is not carried across the sky in a chariot, sacrifices have no influence on rain.
"2. The birth of religion was inevitable for humans to start understanding the world better. They needed a way to break down the vast mysteries of nature into smaller bits so they would not be overwhelmed. Every civilization has different Gods because it was influenced by their geography, culture etc etc. Therefore, the divine beings are simply a stepping stone in the evolution of mankind. People still believe in them because we were told to do so by our forebearers."
I'm not sure if religion was inevitable, but early humans had nothing to compare to or explain what they saw, other than their surroundings. So making up theories is the best you can come up with, but after that you have to go and see whether it is true or not. Is there a giant roaring animal in the sky or not.
As you said, it gets rough once you stop asking 'why' and 'how'.
"I do pray sometimes but only when I am facing an exam or some other difficulty."
I find that quite funny. Have you asked yourself 'why'?
"When you have a pack of ravenous prehistoric animals on your ass without anything to defend your skinny starving ass - where do you find hope?"
Is hope going to save your behind or is it actions?
Mad Gus: "I think religions were born to basically explain why we are here."
That is the crux, religion barely touches the "why are we here? what are we before birth?" and focuses on the "where are we going?" part.
Gevlon: " I mean if there are two preachers, you obviously can't obey both. The perfect God would never create such a faulty test."
Unless choosing the "right" religion is part of the test itself.
"No God would make so unfair test."
Would he? We can prove neither the existance of a god as he has to hide to grant us free will nor what is going to happen with us after we die. Maybe there is a god and the only way to get sorted into heaven is to follow some weird believes.
We are unable to check the results of believing in a certain religion, so we can't say certain rules are 'unfair'.
"The members of the true church are cheating the test of God! Since these people know that it is just a test, it no longer tests their morality, only their self-control and obedience."
The question is what god wants to achieve. Does he want the people to believe in him or does he want them to act in a certain way?
We put up speed limits and punish accordingly to avoid traffic accidents while we don't care whether someone would want to run over crossing people or not.
"So life is a game that will be evaluated by the perfect God who will send the "bad players" to Hell, while rewards the righteous with divine love and perfection in Heaven. This scheme resists all atheists ideas and could not be disproved."
It can't be disproved because it constured in that way. God is so mighty that you can't grasp, therefore can't disprove him. The important point however is that you can't prove his existance either nor can you verify the pay off from following him.
There might be an observing god who sorts us into heaven and hell, but we might as well rot away once we die.
The Holy Ordos of the Inqusition of the God-Emperor will be making a visit to your location shortly heretic.
Now for real, I dont understand the point of your post unless it is to troll someone who is religious since anyone with a bit of critical thinking will have worked out that:
a) there is no god.
b) If there is a God then as almost all religions say that you either worship theirs then you are on a way ticket to Hell, wich leads to picking one and praying that its the correct one.
And BTW catholic religion doesnt say that you must live according to their ruels, it says you should, after all since all sins are forgiven during confession (except for suicide that is and that is for an obvious reason).
I don't have to believe in religion or gods, and would certainly not go about trying to prove religions. You see, religion is so very important in this world. It is one of the rare things that keeps most "normal" people from becoming monsters. On the other hand, I notice how some do evil since they know they will be forgiven. When I was young, I asked my mother about that. She said good Christians rebuke, turn away, from purposely doing evil even though they will be forgiven. Yeah, right...
Even so, I consider most religions to be more good than bad.
The problem with your argument - and bear in mind I'm not taking any stance regarding religion, just pointing out the logical hole in the argument you've laid out here - is where you've stated "The perfect God would never create such a faulty test". You've already acknowledged that the hypothetical God is unwilling to subvert free will by interfering with human affairs directly - why wouldn't this apply to humans creating and teaching religions? Even if such religions did amount to a cheat-sheet for his own test?
On the other hand, if you are willing to ascribe omniscience to this deity then the existence of this cheat sheet makes no difference to his test; as an all-knowing being he can tell which followers of the True Religion followed its tenets purely for personal reward and which followed its tenets because they matched the actions they would take anyway.
God knew, from the very moment he created us that we would fail the test. In giving us free will, He knew we would choose our own path. That's why He planned from the very beginning of the story to intervene.
You observe we are social creatures. That's because we were created for relationships and specifically for a relationship with God.
He knew when we chose our own way, it would sever that relationship, and He loved us too much to leave us that way. That's why He made a way for us to enter back into relationship with Him.
That's why He came to Earth, and lived as a man, and died as a man, and then rose from the dead and returned to heaven.
I'm a former atheist myself, so maybe I come at this discussion from a different perspective. I doubt I'll convince anyone with my post here, as you say, most of these discussion serve only to confirm the person's pre-existing bias.
I can only tell you what happened to me. I found my atheism lead me basically toward nihilism. I never found meaning, or purpose in that. Moreover, I still had this unquenched longing for something. My atheism just didn't satisfy it. It was only when I got that relationship back with God through Jesus Christ that I found that purpose, that meaning. It was only then that the longing was satisfied.
@Ted: why did he make us so faulty that we are unable to find truth and moral without extra help?
@Hivemind: indeed a man with free will can create a cheat sheet. However God could just strike them down with a lightning instantly and place them to Heaven as they just won the test. There is no need to let them pass away the cheat sheet.
Ted A.: "I can only tell you what happened to me. I found my atheism lead me basically toward nihilism. I never found meaning, or purpose in that. Moreover, I still had this unquenched longing for something. My atheism just didn't satisfy it. It was only when I got that relationship back with God through Jesus Christ that I found that purpose, that meaning. It was only then that the longing was satisfied."
So basicaly you are scared that you won't create something that lasts. You hope that there is something after death.
Well, look at the centuries that have passed. How many people created something that we still know and how many haven't? Why should we fear that we haven't accomplished something after we spend a fulfilled life? What if there is nothing, your only chance is while you are still alive and you waste it hoping salvation will come?
Your time is now. Enjoy the hours you are given. Live a fulfilled life.
mordis mydaddy: "You see, religion is so very important in this world. It is one of the rare things that keeps most "normal" people from becoming monsters."
This is ridiculous. If you need religion to keep yourself from turning into a monster you need you head checked.
Science spent a great deal of time working off faulty assumptions.
Before thermodynamics, people didn't understand heat at all and were forced to resort to notion of phlogistons. Before periodic table of elements, alchemists were cooking up crazy stuff, trying to turn lead into gold (which we can do now, btw, albeit at prohibitive energy cost). Before carbon dating, history was glorified storytelling.
And yet if you ask anyone who knows anything about history of science, he'll tell you that those periods of working with faulty assumptions were absolutely instrumental to progress.
Religion is a study of highest order of concepts, related to proper organisation of humanity, and place of each individual human in it.
Thing so complex that we still only have faulty assumptions at best with regards to how they operate.
Now, what you seem to be saying is that since all we have is faulty assumptions, we shouldn't bother at all.
I'm not sure how that is different at all from telling a 15th century alchemist something along the lines of "your work is useless, because you don't have the table of elements".
There was a small period of time (around XIX century) where science thought it got it right, and that it's assumptions are no longer faulty. And yet, it was proven wrong. Was the golden age of science useless for that?
At the moment we understand a great deal of how the world works, but there is still a stupid amount of questions that can potentially overturn our entire understanding and prove us wrong yet again. Does it mean all current science work is worthless?
And if science work is not worthless, why do you say religion work is? Are you positive that's because you really don't know jack about what it entails?
-------------
A more interesting question is whether you personally believe in a world where everyone is satisfied and happy by living by and large in accordance to a predefined set of rules.
If you do - there's your religion, and you can show how your religion offers a better explanation of the world than any other.
If you don't - there is a solid ground on which you can challenge any religious thought, by showing that no religious explanation of the world can ever be complete.
Hopefully, your next post on the topic will have more substance.
@ Gevlon
"God could just strike them down with a lightning instantly and place them to Heaven as they just won the test. There is no need to let them pass away the cheat sheet."
Again, that would violate free will. Also, bear in mind this action wouldn't occur in a vaccuum - presumably before he composed the cheat sheet he would tell friends and family what he was up to ("I aim to set down precepts for living a moral life" or similar) and they'd notice he was suddenly dead. Add that up every time people stumble on the right moral code and people would notice through word of mouth; every time anyone tries to lay out or share a particular moral code, sudden lightning strike? Not subtle.
Again though, presumably the existence of a cheat sheet doesn't break the test because an omniscient god would know who demonstrates the qualities they look for honestly and who are just following the motions for the reward.
You can't disprove religions. Even when they prove that they are unable and unwilling to live in the world. Just look at the Boston Marathon bombers - fundies who could not reconcile the impedance mismatch between their religious worldview and the real world. So they chose to murder people instead.
I just want to point out, in case it hasn't yet been said, that many atheists are not trying to disprove the existence of god(s). It is obvious, as you said, that one cannot measure the supernatural.
Of course there's no real connection between morality and free will. If God were only interested in free will, he could create a world where there was no suffering and watch whether people chose to part their hair on the left or on the right.
Or if it God is only interested in free will as it relates to moral decisions, then he could create a world with no suffering but with greater and lesser levels of happiness. Maybe the world would be structured such that if a person parted his hair on the left, he'd be happier, but the people around him would be slightly less happy. (So parting your hair on the right would be a virtuous act.)
But noooo, we're stuck in this crappy universe which is full of pointless suffering. If God wants to encourage moral behavior, he can start by setting a better example.
Atheists are not supposed to prove that God does not exist. The ones who try are just stupid. Google about Russell's teapot.
Well, there are other multiple flaws in what religion teach. I have recently work with a christian boss, religious zealot nutcase, and he explained me stuff. Also, my friend's dad is also a christian, and he told me some stuff.
If God is omnipotent/omniscient/whatever you know what I mean, how did he not predict:
The fall of Lucifer becoming the Devil.
The corruption of Adam and Eve by Lucifer
Amongst other things.
The other thing, but this is about disproving God, is that there is three possible situations:
1: There is no God
2: There is a God
3: There are multiple Gods (possibly all Gods from all religions, or only certain gods from certain religions, we could split #3 in #4 5 6 7 8 9 10 as many as there are different Gods in different folklore)
The issue is that whether we like it or not, one of those three situations is true.
But we can't tell which is.
But since this post is about proving that religion is a stupid concept...
The only goal of religion is worshipping in order to go to heaven. Even though we can't be sure. If God came up and clearly said:
"Sup Guys! I'm your Creator, and you kinda gotta behave if you want your immortal soul to go to heaven."
I'm pretty certain that upon hearing the above 99% of atheists, including me, would convert and accept.
But there's no proof.
Someone told me that "God" in hebrew meant "Wind". Then he said "Can you see the wind?" I said No. He then replied "Can you feel the Wind". I said "Yes, and I see the LEAVES MOVING WHEN THERE'S WIND".
So, yeah. Religion is dumb, nothing new here.
Is there or is there not a God? Who knows.
But if there is, and he is omniscient, why did he not predict like, the fall of Lucifer and the fall of mankind?
Let's invalidate your whole proof in a few sentences:
I choose to invalidate your proof by counterexample:
I will show that there can be a single true religion.
- There are religions that believe in reincarnation (e.g. Buddhism)
- In such a religion, imperfect people are reborn and can improve.
- only people "scoring perfectly" enter the "real afterlife"
Such a religion could be right without getting an unfair advantage ( once they learned enough, everyone can become member of that religion, maybe it takes several lives, but that doesn't matter, whoever doesn't lean has to stay)
Given the arguments in the "proof" in the article, this shows that there can be a "right" religion and the world is still a test.
This does NOT claim that Buddhism is the right religion, there might be another one, there might be many, there might be none.
What this shows, is that the proof has loopholes, and as such is not a proof but an incomplete argument observing only a narrow set of ideas of the author.
While the post gives some interesting ideas, it is also far from disproving religions.
A proof has to hold for all cases.
Please note that I did not disprove the existence of God. That probably can't be done as you can't make measurements on the supernatural.
I don't think you have to "disprove God", you are not the one making the assertion. The burden of evidence is on those who assert God's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Atheists are doing it all wrong, trying to defeat the idea of God.
I wouldn't think to speak for all Atheists, but the Atheist circles I hang around in do nothing of the sort.
Atheists simply do not believe in a supernatural being. When pushed by theists as to the existence of the supernatural, we naturally ask for evidence. Why be fearful of that which there is no evidence of its existence, now or at any point in history?
Even the stronger Antitheist position doesn't argue against the idea of God. It argues against the harm that the irrational belief in the supernatural has caused and continues to cause to mankind.
@Camo
----
mordis mydaddy: "You see, religion is so very important in this world. It is one of the rare things that keeps most "normal" people from becoming monsters."
This is ridiculous. If you need religion to keep yourself from turning into a monster you need you head checked.
----
This may sound ridiculous but he is not crazy. This is an instinct created by evolution. We all keep an urge to believe in some kind of tribal ideology which unites the tribe. The initiation rituals all primitive tribes have (and some of these rituals are there with us even today) led to selection of those who are ready to believe in anything what an authority says.
Disproving ... rly? ... Does it matter?
The Amarr can't get rid of it and use the fruits of technology to push the limits on the lifespan of their beloved queen. So does it matter?
fresh in the press ... this might give you some other perspectives on the subject.
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html
Not to jump on the "science has the answers" bandwagon ... they don't ... but they can stimulate some interesting chain-of-thought.
afterlife? beforelife?
One god? multiple gods?
scriptures and "essential" rules/logic transferred within kinky stories?
institution vs believing the "whole thing" or just "pick and chose"?
And that is only superstition.
"you see it you will shit bricks" - If you really want to lose some safety and a peace-of-mind ... start unwrapping the religious institutions and their doctrine and apply the same to other institutions like your ohh so beloved money systems, political systems or society doctrines or any other thought up stuff that people will defend like it's their own child.
In the end. It's everyone own mind and responsibility to think stuff trough or leave the chain-of-though to preserve some mystery/sanity/safety/peace-of-mind/whatever.
one little fail-chain: chatholic creationists should lookup UBER deadly viruses and bacteria and apply their thoughtup "inteligent design" there without the cookiecutters ... is the Devil more powerful than God? Or does the Devil not participate in designing stuff? Or are those shitty deadly viruses not mentioned in the resume of a superior being? If all is perfect und inteligently designed so why the fuck do we humans bother to cure UBER inteligently designed stuff? *sigh*
I'm not good with words!
anyway ... keep writing Goblin! Your debunks and a-social writing is like reading the bible for other ;)
Tsis is depressingly late, but I disagree. Here, your basis is that in order to get into heaven people must ACT a certain way. In some religions there are characteristics that God has that you're not taking into consideration. Respectfully, I think you're forgetting about the omnipotence of God. People can't ACT good outwardly but be evil inwardly. Some religions do not work like that, a noble action must come both from the conscience and from the heart and that is the purpose of free will in some religions. I don't think your loophole applies for every religion. It was an insightful read but one that ultimately I have to disagree with.
Post a Comment